I think the Sporting language in 18 USC 925 is stupid and should be removed.
And I agree it has nothing to do with the Second Amendment.
However, I don’t think it’s unconstitutional under current precedent (or indeed, at all) – not all stupid policies are unconstitutional.
Congress has the enumerated power to regulate interstate and international trade. An import ban plainly falls under that power, so it’s not just a power-grab.
The question, thus, is does such an import ban infringe on the keeping and bearing of arms as such?
I can’t come up with a way to make the answer be “yes”, given the extremely large size of the domestic firearms industry; nothing is stopping anyone from producing a Saiga-equivalent in the United States, such that the import ban would not apply.
(Now, the Attorney General might refuse to certify a native one as “sporting” and thus not-a-Destructive-Device ala the USAS, but that’s a slightly different matter.
I also don’t like the NFA’s restrictions [at very least, smoothbores that are shoulder-fired never should have been covered under the DD regulations], but it’s equally un-obvious that the DD regulations constitute infringement at the Constitutional level.
I certainly wouldn’t hold my breath for a Court to say that the NFA is invalid under the Second Amendment, and I’m inclined to waffle as to whether the entirety of the act really would be.)
Yo! NRA ILA! Where are you guys on this? I’d think you’d be breathing down Congress’ collective back, getting them to breath down ATF’s back.
Nothing like a good old fashioned congressional hearing to get ATF to back off, for example. I’m sure there are some House freshmen who’d be willing to step up.
January 28th, 2011 at 3:20 pm
I think the Sporting language in 18 USC 925 is stupid and should be removed.
And I agree it has nothing to do with the Second Amendment.
However, I don’t think it’s unconstitutional under current precedent (or indeed, at all) – not all stupid policies are unconstitutional.
Congress has the enumerated power to regulate interstate and international trade. An import ban plainly falls under that power, so it’s not just a power-grab.
The question, thus, is does such an import ban infringe on the keeping and bearing of arms as such?
I can’t come up with a way to make the answer be “yes”, given the extremely large size of the domestic firearms industry; nothing is stopping anyone from producing a Saiga-equivalent in the United States, such that the import ban would not apply.
(Now, the Attorney General might refuse to certify a native one as “sporting” and thus not-a-Destructive-Device ala the USAS, but that’s a slightly different matter.
I also don’t like the NFA’s restrictions [at very least, smoothbores that are shoulder-fired never should have been covered under the DD regulations], but it’s equally un-obvious that the DD regulations constitute infringement at the Constitutional level.
I certainly wouldn’t hold my breath for a Court to say that the NFA is invalid under the Second Amendment, and I’m inclined to waffle as to whether the entirety of the act really would be.)
January 28th, 2011 at 6:02 pm
Yo! NRA ILA! Where are you guys on this? I’d think you’d be breathing down Congress’ collective back, getting them to breath down ATF’s back.
Nothing like a good old fashioned congressional hearing to get ATF to back off, for example. I’m sure there are some House freshmen who’d be willing to step up.